Living Right under the Peak

Main menu

Tag Archives: scientists

“If their father is willing to continue risking his livelihood in order to continue chopping up animals in a laboratory, then his children are old enough to recognize the consequences. This guy knows what he is doing. He knows that every day that he goes into the laboratory and hurts animals that it is unreasonable not to expect consequences.”

— Dr. Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front

Light One Up for Animal Liberation - Kill Kill Kill

“To put this on par with any of the human rights issues is an absolute insult to the integrity of the people who fought and went through the human rights movement. This is what people do when they have an inability to articulate their point in any constructive way. They resort to primal acts of violence. Any reasonable person would need a logic transplant to begin to understand this level of degraded thinking.”

Anybody want to raise their hands and actually admit that they believe the earth and all its population is doomed forever? Here’s one:

The world’s climate experts say that that the world’s CO2 output must peak within the next decade and then drop, very fast, if we are to reach this sort of long term reduction. In short, we have about 100 months to turn the global energy system around. The action taken must be immediate and far reaching.

Which climate experts? Oh yeah, the ones demanding tax money for funding the institutes to create studies on climate change which demand more tax money for more studies for more institutes. And after all – its just pocket change:

According to Professor Stern, climate change is likely to result in droughts and floods that will create 200 million climate refugees and it could make two-fifths of the world’s species extinct. Yet to solve it, as challenging as it may seem, would only cost 1 or 2% of global GDP. Roughly what is spent worldwide on advertising. This is pocket change for the G8. Just these eight countries between them account for about 65% of global GDP.

So what is suggested? Immediate moritorium on coal burning anywhere, an Apollo program to fund renewables, lots of money spent on reducing energy use and waste, and stop cutting down any tree anywhere. Which translates to:

Immediate reduction in available energy world-wide

lots of money for lots of fancy institutes and tests and stuff with absolutely no idea whether this work would produce energy on any kind of basis which would keep society going. The ultimate aim is really population reduction of course, but that’s not actually acknowledged.

lots of money for insulation (except for that non-green asbestos and stuff that actually works) and lots of nannying to keep everybody in the world guilty about using even one electron (up to and including public execution probably)

no more paper – which also means no more toliet paper too

In other words, pie in the sky answers pulling trillions of dollars for something that may not even give them the outcome they want – a 50% reduction in the world standard of living. However, lots of climate scientists would get lots of big freaking grants! In the belief they can actually do anything that would affect this: